传统社会向现代社会的转型决定着中国的制度建设具有“摸着石头过河”的特点，错案责任追究制度作为司法实践中自下而上产生的追究办错案件责任的制度即如是。上世纪80年代末90年代初，错案责任追究制度首先由秦皇岛市海港区法院首创，后被推行至全国。但是，该制度自产生之初就备受争议，并逐渐形成了肯定和否定两大阵营，且大体表现为呈相反方向运动的制度变迁的轨迹。那么，这种制度变迁隐含的深层原因是什么呢？在司法改革的大背景下，该制度今后的走向又如何？有无继续存在的价值？ 当下错案责任追究制度的存废之争中，肯定论侧重于从司法民主、司法监督和法律的确定性出发，否定论则偏向于从司法独立、司法保障和法律的不确定性立论。由于双方站在不同的立场并持不同的价值判断，所以仅从理论上单纯的肯定一方或否定另一方未免失之武断，难以令人信服。因此有必要考察错案责任追究制度在司法实践中的运行状况，并在此基础上进行科学全面的分析，方有可能得出恰当的结论。总的来看，错案责任追究制度运行多年以来，尽管取得了一定的效果，但是社会现实表明，其并未有效满足人民群众对司法公正的期待，并未实现制度设计的初衷。进一步考察，错案责任追究制度在司法实践中还产生了很多始料未及的偏差和问题。产生上述种种制度舛误的根源在于错案责任追究制度基本上是在传统人治社会的语境中设计的，因而延续了传统社会“法官严格责任制”的思路；其深层次原因则是制度设计时价值取向的偏差、理论基础不足、法律依据欠缺、自我追究的非现实性等。因此，该制度并不符合现代法治社会法官职业特点和司法客观规律的要求，故宜废除。但是错案责任追究制度蕴涵的司法监督、司法民主的理念和社会诉求则是应该肯定的。同时考虑到该制度本质上并未超出法官惩戒制度的范畴，因此其变革宜同我国已有的瑕瑜互现的法官惩戒制度的完善结合起来，创建既符合我国国情，又具有现代法治社会前瞻性的行之有效的法官惩戒制度。按照司法公正的合目的性解释，该制度的建立必须遵循以下原则，即保障法官独立审判、注意配套制度建设、符合法官职业特点和司法客观规律。具体建议是：规范惩戒立法，制定统一的《中华人民共和国法官惩戒法》；改革惩戒机构，单独设立法官惩戒委员会；明确惩戒事由，以可控性为原则、以行为和程序为标准；完善惩戒程序，将法官惩戒司法化。
The Chinese institutional construction has an experimental characteristic which is determined by the society transformation from tradition to modernization. The system of investigation and affixation of the misjudged cases’ responsibility, as a judicial practice from the basic to the top level, also reflects such a feature. In the years of late 1980’s and early 1990’s, the responsibility system on investigation and affixation of the misjudged cases was first created by the court of Haigang district, Qin huangdao city. After that, the system was introduced and practiced to the whole nation. However, coming with many controversies, its emergence gradually split into two types including the positive and the negative. Each side constructed its own camp. While, what’s the main cause of such a transformation? With the judicial reform background, what kind of future it will have? Is there any value that will make it still exist? The positive arguments of the responsibility system on investigation and affixation of the misjudged cases emphasize the judicial democracy, judicial supervision, and the certainty of law; the negative arguments lie in the judicial independence, the judicial security and the uncertainty of law. Each side’s basic value is so different that it will be arbitrary to be theoretically for or against either of them. As a result, it’s necessary to do some actual practice in the responsibility system on investigation and affixation of the misjudged cases, and then analyze it comprehensively and scientifically in order to make a proper conclusion. Generally speaking, the pragmatic operation of the responsibility system on investigation and affixation of the misjudged cases hasn’t satisfied the people’s expectation toward judicial justice and hasn’t fulfilled its purpose, although some effects have been showed. According to further examinations, the system has led to many unexpected problems in its practice. As far as those faults are concerned, they originate from the traditional society ruled by man which embodied a thought of district responsibility of the judge. So, the deviation of its value, the weakness of its theoretical basis, the deficiency of the law, and the unreality of the self-criticism of the system constituted the deep causation. Consequently, such a system can’t conform to the requirement of the characteristics and the law of the judicial profession in a modern society ruled of law. Nevertheless, the responsibility system on investigation and affixation of the misjudged cases contains such ideas and social needs as the judicial supervision and democracy which should be affirmed. Meanwhile, considering its same nature with the disciplinary system of the judge, the two systems should be combined perfectly to make a new judge’s disciplinary system to satisfy the practical needs of the nation and prepare for a new rule of law society. According to the explanation on the judicial justice’s aim, the creation of such a new system must be based on the following principles: the dependence of the judge, the concerning institutional construction, conformance to judges’ professional requirements, and the objective judicial rules. The detail suggestions lie in the regulation of the disciplinary legislation, the codification of the uniform Judges’ disciplinary law of the People’s Republic of China, the reform of the disciplinary institutions, the creation of an independent committee for the discipline of judges, and the clarification of disciplines with the criteria of acts and procedures, among which we should put the emphasis on the controlling principles of the attributable responsibility theories.
